KESAR SINGH Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below. The landlord sought ejectment of his tenant inter alia on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation inasmuch as the roof of the shop is damaged and a part of its has already collapsed and there is danger to human life as the remaining portion of the roof may fall at any time. In the written statement the tenant controverted the said allegations. It was pleaded that the landlord had pulled out two rafters to harass the tenant and an application for repair under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short 'the Act') in that behalf has also been filed and is pending. The present ejectment application has been filed by way of counter blast. The Rent Controller found that the landlord has not been able to show as to how the change of the roof would amount to reconstruction. It might be a major repair but it cannot amount to material structural alterations. Ultimately it was held that the building had not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this petition the tenant moved Civil Misc. No. 681-C-II of 1987 whereby he produced the copy of the statement dated 28th November, 1978 made by the landlord Kesar Singh before the Rent Controller, application filed by the defendant under Section 12 of the Act and the copy of the order of the Rent Controller passed therein on 28th November, 1978. Therein the landlord admitted that the application for repair filed by the tenant is correct; he may carry out the repair as he liked but as he was a poor man he was unable to bear the expenses; he shall not cause any obstruction in the repair work.

(3.) ON the last date of hearing an offer was made by the tenant that a Local Commissioner may be appointed who may go to the spot and find out the present condition of the shop in dispute. However, the landlord declined the said offer and reiterated that the condition of the shop be seen only at the time of filing ejectment application.